1. Technical Field
The present invention relates to improvements in golf putters and, more particularly, to such improvements which facilitate proper alignment of the club head prior to the putting stroke and which enhance putting stroke accuracy.
2. Discusslon of the Prior Art
The prior art contains a multitude of golf putter designs, each in some way intended to facilitate proper alignment between the club putting face, the ball and the cup or hole, and/or to optimize the putting stroke itself. I have found, however, that all prior art golf putters of which I am aware consider only some aspects of club alignment or stroking while ignoring others, or consider only alignment or stroking while ignoring the other. To illustrate this I shall first make reference to golf putter alignment. There are many prior golf putters provided with sighting devices intended to enable a golfer to properly position the putter relative to the ball and the cup. Examples of such patents are U.S. Pat. Nos. 2,929,631 (Gillon); 3,043,596 (Ehmke); 3,548,504 (Sykes); 3,880,430 (McCabe); 4,032,156 (Clarke); 4,136,877 (Antonious); and 4,209,172 (Yamamoto).
Some of these patents disclose sighting devices of types which are not sanctioned by the rules of the United States Golf Association (USGA). Nevertheless, each of the sighting devices aids in locating the golfer's head in a vertical plane which includes the ball, the cup and the golfers eye. In other words, these sighting devices aid the golfer in positioning his or her head so that it is not positioned transversely (i.e., to one side or the other) of the line of sight between the ball and the hole. However, these sighting devices also attempt to position the golfer's eye directly above the part of the club which is to contact the ball. For example, in one prior patent the disclosed sighting device includes a surface recessed from the top of the club head and marked with two intersecting perpendicular lines, one line extending in the desired direction of the putting stroke and in alignment with the "sweet spot" (i.e., optimal striking location) on the club face, the other line extending parallel to the club face. A second set of complementary lines are defined in a different plane at the top surface of the club head and are viewed by the golfer as lineal extensions of the recessed lines only when the golfer's head is positioned vertically above the sight, or substantially directly above the impact location between the ball and the club during the putting stroke. This positioning of the golfer' s head, however, does not provide for an optimum putting stroke. By way of explanation, the motion of the club head during a proper putting stroke may be described as follows: first, the club head is moved in a rearward and upward arc during the short backswing; second, during the initial part of the forward swing, the club head reverses direction substantially along the same arcuate path, finally, after impacting against the ball, the club moves through the follow through portion of the swing in an upward and forward direction from the former ball location along a continuation of the arcuate path. When the golfer's head is directly over the impact point of the ball and club, as intended with the prior art sighting devices, a number of disadvantages result. First, the club head impacts against the ball at the nadis of the arcuate path transversed during the forward swing. This provides a "flush" contact between the club and the ball at impact, applying no topspin to the ball, with the result that the ball tends to initially "take off" in an uncontrolled manner, sometimes being raised off the putting green for the first few inches of its path. A ball thusly struck tends to move off course more readily than does a ball with topspin, and the putt is much more difficult to control. Second, when the golfer's head is positioned directly above the ball-club head impact, the golfer cannot see the rear side of the ball where the club is going to strike the ball. Accuracy demands that the point of impact on the ball be visible to the golfer.
A recognized problem with prior art golf putters relates to the tendencies of the club head to twist or turn upon impact with the ball, particularly when the impact point is displaced from the "sweet spot". For example, the golf putter club head disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 4,147,357 (Strop) attempts to enlarge the heel-to-toe length of the "sweet spot" to minimize twisting of the head upon impact. Further, Strop configures the bottom surface of the club head arcuately to minimize the area of the head which contacts the ground during the putting stroke, thereby reducing uneven drag or stubbing of the head on the ground during the backswing and forward swing. Other putter designs which address this type of problem may be found in U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,340,229 (Stuff, Jr.), 4,073,492 (Taylor) and 3,486,755 (Hodge). However these and all prior arc putter of which I am aware appear to be designed without any recognition of the crucial relationship between initial orientation of club head (i.e., prior to positioning of the golfer's head), the heel-to-toe balance of the club head, location of the center of gravity of the club head, and the configuration of the leading edge of the bottom surface of the club head. More particularly, although the putter disclosed in the Strop patent may have an enlarged "sweet spot" and a raised bottom surface at the heel and toe, the initial positioning of the club head relative to the ground is imprecise because the bottom surface of the club head is arcuate. In other words, the club head can rock on its bottom surface and assume different orientations relative to the ground. If the heel or toe is raised during the putting stroke, the resulting tilt usually produces a pulled or pushed putt that strays from the desired course. Moreover, the head of the Strop putter is made entirely of a bronze which is heavy for providing a solid "feel" but is soft to prevent the ball from "springing" or caroming off the face plate. However, in practice this is a compromise between "feel" and "spring" wherein the "spring" effect is not sufficiently eliminated.